Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Iriemon, Apr 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. REDRUM

    REDRUM New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's quite annoying and disturbing when progressive Liberals "cherry pick" economic data to support their partisan statements. Here's what Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator" inherited from Jimmy Carter and a Democratic lead controlled congress:

    1) Prime rate lending 20.5%, nearly six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

    2) Core inflation 13.6%, approximately six times higher in 1980 compared to 2012.

    3) 18.5%/30 year mortgage rate, roughly 4 times higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

    4) 17.4%/48 month car loan rate, estimated 2.5 higher in 1981 compared to 2012.

    5) In 1980/1981, real gas prices 32% higher compared to 2011.

    6) A notably high 7.5% nation wide unemployment rate.

    7) An economy that retracted in Real GDP growth by -0.3% in fiscal year 1980.

    8) Jimmy Carter's Misery Index score: 16.27 (highest in U.S. history)
     
  2. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    High interest rates are a result of monetary policy, the result of the actions of Fed Chairman Volcker, appointed by Carter, to break the inflation cycle. Which it did.

    None of which change the fact that economy was growing at a 7% real rate when Reagan took office.

    Obama was handed an economy with 7.8% unemployment (which was skyrocketing up) and a -9.2% GDP rate.
     
  3. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the contrary. Many of our conservative friends have posted Gallup unemployment numbers, citing them as a reliable alternative to the Govt numbers.
     
  4. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely disagree. Money that was spend saving the banking system and automobile industries from collapsing and millions more Govt employees from being fired arguably had an immediate impact on putting a floor on the recession and turning the economy around.

    Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.

    Massive government intervent and plans for intervention, even to the extent it does not result in an immediate injection of money (and a lot of the Govt intervention was immediate) can and (despite the best efforts of conservative outlets like Fox to promote economic malaise for political purposes) did reduce the panic and fear, which is crucial to break the recessionary death spiral.

    You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics, but IMO, it is not just some gigantic, massive coincidence that despite the collapse of the credit and real estate and stock market and automotive industries, the economy bottome out and started turning around when this massive Govt intervention occured.

    And for that we should all be thankful to Bush and Paulson and Bernanke and Geithner and Obama and the Democrats who supported these actions.


    That is simply a baseless and unfounded assertion. Lower interest rates I agree affects those who rely on interest rates for income, but SS is the most important leg for most retirees, and to argue that had more of an economic effect than seeing the economy continue to tank is simply baseless conjecture.

    Yet another baseless claim. This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs.

    I agree that the deficit is a problem. Tell your Tea Party and Republican reps to compromise on a tax increase to get a budget deal done. That is the most effective way to address that problem.
     
  5. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Please define 'recessionary death spiral'?

    Specifically the use and meaning - in this case - of the word 'death'?

    Death of what?

    First you typed:

    'You cannot prove anything absolutely in economics'.

    Then you later typed:

    'This one is directly rebutted by numerous studies that have found that Govt intervention prevented the recession from being far worse and saved millions of jobs'


    By your own words, it is impossible to absolutely prove what would have happened without the Stimulus.

    Impossible.


    Thus, there is ZERO way to prove that the economy would not have improved FAR faster and greater (by now) without the Stimulus/QE's.


    Roughly $7.7 trillion in debt spent in 5 years with no factual proof that it has actually improved the U.S. economy more then had it never been spent in the first place.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow....8.1% unemployment instead of 8.2%. Yep, the economy is taking off like a rocket......a North Korea rocket, that is.

    Even Obama said that if he can't fix the economy in 3 years, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. I agree with him.
     
  7. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Four more American soldiers died in Afghanistan yesterday. That should make Obama happy.
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure it makes Bush and Cheney and the Republicans and Tea Parties estatic. Four less guys to pay for, right?
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree a .1% point change is in itself not a big deal.

    However, a drop from 11.7% to 8.1% is a bigger deal, wouldn't you agree? As is the fact that this is the lowest unemployment level reproted by Gallup since it started tracking it in early 2010.
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll repeat my previos post, since you obviously did not read it:

    Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.

    Death of a salesman? What else? Jeez.

    The fallacy is you position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

    So yes, I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

    However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

    And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.
     
  11. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe, but I will draw your attention to the fact that it was Baraka Obama who gave the order for those men to deploy to Afghanistan where they died in vain. Whose hands are CURRENTLY covered in American blood?
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Afghanistan war was basically ignored and mismanaged for years while we foolishly invaded and occupied a nation based on a "mistake" that had nothing to do with 911. Obama inherited the war and the mess it was in. He didn't start it but has tried to make the best out of a big mess.

    Nice try to blame Obama for another Bush/Republican mess. You guys are good at that.
     
  13. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama said ending the Iraq War would be the first thing he would do as President.

    [video=youtube;8VlXfs1K04g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g[/video]

    That later turned into ending the Iraq war within 18 months. He later followed the agreed upon timetable for withdrawal that was set up during Bush's Presidency.

    Nice spin attempt, though.
     
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He ended it, though, unlike his predecessor who started that disaster.
     
  15. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I will ask you again - 'death' of what?

    'death
    n.
    1. The act of dying; termination of life.
    2. The state of being dead.'

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/death


    Death means the termination of.

    What specifically are you referring to that would terminate/cease to be in your 'death spiral'?


    Sounds to me like you are using a word for nothing more then dramatic effect (a common Keynesian tactic) since the proper meaning of that word seems to have nothing to do with the subject matter you are describing.



    Exactly.

    In fact, it is impossible to prove how ANYTHING would be different in the past under different circumstances.

    So, studies claiming the past would be different and HOW it would be different under different circumstances are nothing more then pure conjecture and guesswork.

    And it is these 'studies' that seems to form the basis for the justification of the Stimulus/QE's.



    Rather amazing that Keynesians seem fine with spending over $7.5 TRILLION dollars of debt (and continuing to spend even more) on 'fixing' the economy when there is absolutely NO factual proof that the economy is ANY better today for these huge sums spent.

    I would think the idea of shackling every single American with at least $20,000 more debt since 2008 (from Stimuli/gov't. deficits/QE's/Operation Twist) would cause more rational people to want proof before putting such a huge debt burden on future Americans.

    Obviously, Keynesian's have few such concerns.
     
  16. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His predecessor never planned to stay there forever.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201006270005

    I love defeating leftists with their own media sources.
     
  17. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jeez, what the hell would you think I mean? Death of jobs, death of businesses, death of wealth, death of economic growth and parts of the economy.



    Since you have taken my statement out of context, I'll repost my post here so my statement is clear:

    The fallacy is you position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

    So yes, I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

    However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

    And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.
     
  18. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I remember. They were going to go in, be welcomed as saviors and heros, and $50 billion later (paid for by Iraqi oil) we'd be home with a nice stable democracy in place.

    How would you know?
     
  19. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  20. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. We should have got out in 2003. I can't blame Obama too much for taking a final shot to make the best out of the mess he inherited, but I certainly agree we should pull the troops out.
     
  21. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was foolhardy to have invaded the country. It was just as foolhardy to have escalated the war. There on now 90,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan accomplishing nothing except running the risk of death.

    Between Iraq and Afghanistan there have been many unforeseen consequences. The worst of which is the fact that the political fabric of this country has been ripped apart. An empire has been lost, and now the country itself is in danger of coming apart psychologically. The last eleven years have been astonishing.
     
  22. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You typed the following:

    'Massive government intervent and plans for intervention, even to the extent it does not result in an immediate injection of money (and a lot of the Govt intervention was immediate) can and (despite the best efforts of conservative outlets like Fox to promote economic malaise for political purposes) did reduce the panic and fear, which is crucial to break the recessionary death spiral.'

    Do not jobs/businesses/wealth/parts of the economy 'die' all the time - in good and bad times?


    And you typed: 'death of economic growth'?

    What does that mean?

    That there will never be growth again?

    For it to die - that means it ceases. It is gone forever.

    Are you certain you meant 'death'?






    Surely you realize that you can find evidence to support ANY idea/conclusion.

    The sky is falling, the Earth is flat, etc..


    I am not interested in 'evidence'.

    I am only interested in factual proof.


    And you cannot provide ANY factual proof that the various Stimuli/QE's have rendered the U.S. economy ANY better now then it would have been had these spending policies never taken place.

    True or false, please?
     
  23. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    BTW - between October 2008 and today, the total U.S. civilian labor force has gone DOWN (despite the fact the population has grown by 10+ million in that time):

    http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsln/lns11000000:(rev)

    The housing market is worse.

    http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/cenc25/c25q07

    Food stamp usage is at a record high (70% higher then it was in 2007)

    http://www.inquisitr.com/222869/food-stamp-use-increased-by-70-since-2007/


    So less people are working/looking for work, more people are starving on their own and most people's houses are worth less since 2008.
     
  24. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Easy to say in hindsight. Again, I can't blame him too much for taking a shot at trying to make a decent result out of the disaster he inherited.

    No disagreement here.
     
  25. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) What is the basis for your assertion that the Govt intervention cost 7.5 trillion.

    2) What is your argument that that caused a decrease in the labor market, housing market, and food stamp usage?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page